Emma Watson named in latest Panama Papers leak

You what? She did defend her privacy, how are us plebs supposed to defend ours?

Don't judge a book by its cover. Who would have believe that under the cover of being a champion of all women, she turn out to be a tax evader

Are you being stalked by celebrity-obsessed maniacs?

And what of none celebrity-obsessed stalkers?

I'm sure Emma Watson's solicitors would be aware of this and her case would have been approved, but unfortunately there are loopholes and determined people can still obtain the information. This is the problem.

Yes, these are the problems of a very rich woman.

No, not just the problems of a very rich woman, as a rich woman she could just go to Mossack Fonseca, far more of a problem for a poor woman.

.

So we agree.

I don't agree. I think it's clear that in the case of Cameron's father, the purpose up and down was tax avoidance. I agree there's an issue about the relevance of what his father did, but it was clearly a matter of public interest to report that the Prime Minister's father was a tax haven user and to enquire if this meant that the PM himself is a likely beneficiary of it.

The Emma Watson case is not about tax evasion as such, unless we think she's a liar, which as I've already said, there's no evidence for. Her case is about using offshore generally for rich people to hide ownership. I don't agree with people doing that, but there probably should be an exemption for people in the public eye to have privacy. Of course, that might also be abused and difficult to implement, I realise.

If there were any evidence that he did not behave in any way lawfully then that WOULD (arguably) be of public interest. But he didn't behave unlawfully.

Is your position that "tax havens" (in proper English, low tax jurisdictions) are somehow immoral, and that creates the public interest defence? Well who decides it is immoral, and on what objective basis?

Would it be the Guardian perhaps, which has covered Cameron's father's tax affairs at great length?

The same newspaper which is owned and managed by the Scott Trust? Which used a tax exempt shell in the Cayman Islands to dispose of its 50% stake in Auto Trader in a sale to Apax Partners to avoid paying Corporation tax? Which has invested hundreds of millions in offshore hedge funds over the years?

I don't have a problem with that myself. The Guardian newpaper and online service loses a lot of money, is a legitimate radical voice in our polity, and needs to take lawful means to finance itself.

But I do have a problem with it moralising on the wickedness of offshore tax planning for other people, whilst benefiting itself. Because the hypocrisy is nauseating.

It is always the way with the left. Don't do as I do. (Or would do given half the chance). Do as I say.

It isn't only the Guardian that covered Cameron's father's tax status, most of the main media got onto it. It's a pretty standard smear tactic of the right to say "it's all the Guardian's fault" blah blah blah. As for the Scott Trust and Auto Trader, that's also a standard smear, but anyone who knows the story well knows that it was the Auto Trader Group who set that up long before it was taken over by the Trust. Also, despite that being yet another example of tax avoidance using tax havens, which yes, I am against, it's noteworthy that no individuals gained from that, the Scott Trust is a non-profit. Unlike the Camerons.

The Scott Trust made £619 million pounds from the Auto Trader sale and paid NO tax. Nada, zip, nothing. £0. £0 pence.

"A GMG spokesperson told Press Gazette that they won't be paying any tax on the £619m because of the "substanial shareholding exemption" which automatically applies under HMRC rules."

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/guardian-secure-generations-come-after-tax-free-bonanza-%C2%A3619m-auto-trader-sale

To argue that the Trust was simply unwillingly benefiting from a scheme set up by someone else is disingenuous at best and downright dishonest at worst. It could have struck up a deal with HMRC to pay a morally appropriate rate of tax.

It being "not for profit" and all.

Like I say, stinking hypocrisy.

And nothing you've said contradicts what I said, which is that it didn't benefit individuals because the Scott Trust profits are re-invested in Guardian Media Group which does not have private shareholders.

As I said, routine right wing smear stuff. /thread

It isn't only the Guardian that covered Cameron's father's tax status, most of the main media got onto it. It's a pretty standard smear tactic of the right to say "it's all the Guardian's fault" blah blah blah. As for the Scott Trust and Auto Trader, that's also a standard smear, but anyone who knows the story well knows that it was the Auto Trader Group who set that up long before it was taken over by the Trust. Also, despite that being yet another example of tax avoidance using tax havens, which yes, I am against, it's noteworthy that no individuals gained from that, the Scott Trust is a non-profit. Unlike the Camerons.

The Cameron's paid full UK taxes on their offshore income. People argue against tax avoidance because it's depriving the tax man of revenue, not against the concept of someone else making money. But I hadn't realised wholesale corporate tax avoidance is okay so long as none of the money is paid out as a dividend. If it's retained by the company, then that's okay is it?

No.

All I'm pointing is that the usual smear that "the Guardian does it too" is somewhat modified by the fact that they aren't turning it into commercial profits to enrich individuals. The moral context of the tax evasion/avoidance story is personal enrichment in an unfair way.

I've repeatedly argued on TSR that there shouldn't be tax havens at all, but I don't hear right wing posters joining in with that position, so why do you/they care if non-profits also do it?

No.

I've repeatedly argued on TSR that there shouldn't be tax havens at all, but I don't hear right wing posters joining in with that position, so why do you/they care if non-profits also do it?

Sigh.

If you look at my posting history you will see that I do NOT criticise the Scott Trustees for using offshore measures to mitigate their UK tax exposure. I think (and publicly stated) that it was entirely financially sensible of them.

My criticism is of the hypocrisy of the Guardian hacks, ultimately employed by this Trust, (we all know the Guardian loses money hand over fist and is bailed out by this Trust) who scream at the moral wickedness of offshore tax planning, whilst having their mortgages paid for by those very techniques.

It is stinking hypocrisy. I am not saying that to win an argument on the internet, or for effect. Or as a "right wing smear" based on faux outrage.

I am expressing what I sincerely believe.

Individual Guardian journalists are hardly able to control what the Scott Trust does, any more than Sun journalists can control Murdoch. Everyone in the media is some kind of hypocrite over some issue or other. The Guardian has done for, far more than any other part of Britain's sleepy and compliant media to expose the scale of tax dodging. Singling them out for attack is the hypocritical thing, but even if they are hypocrites, I'd sooner have them than the sleazy odious right wing manipulations of the oligarchs and their timid pet papers.